Frustrated with the Toledo Water Department? Give money to Anita Lopez, flyer urgers

In a clever fundraising event, Lucas County Auditor and mayoral candidate Anita Lopez is hoping to raise money by piggybacking on the area's frustration with the Toledo Water Department.

The flyer, pictured below, starts with "OVERHAUL THE WATER DEPARTMENT" and asks "Fed up with the water department? Please join us for a shindig featuring Anita Lopez." It's Aug. 29th and light snacks are provided, but it's a cash bar.

The contribution levels are:

• $25 Fed Up
• $100 No Deposits
• $250 No Back Billing
• $500 No waiting for phone calls to be answered
• $1000 Accurate Meter Readings
• $5000 Put the Bill in the Consumers' Names

A lot of people are upset with the Water Department, so this seems like a perfect theme for a fundraiser and it's also one of the more clever ones I've seen since I started in politics 20 years ago.

The department requires the property owner to be the name on the water account for an address. This has a lot of landlords and renters upset because it makes them responsible for billing and collecting for water service in a rental unit.

Earlier this year, they started requiring a $200 deposit for any new service, but quickly backed off on on the terms, allowing prior customers with good service to have the deposit waived.

Responding to complaints about waiting hours to get a phone call answered, the city expanded the department's customer service call center hours, beginning at 7 a.m. (an hour earlier) and closing at 6 p.m. (a half-hour later). They also said they'd answer all the calls for anyone still on hold in the queue at 6 p.m. They also hired 8 more people and changed the grace period from 15 calendar days to 15 business day.

But Toledoans are still upset with the increased fees for water and sewer service and the increases that are scheduled over the next couple of years.

Interestingly, it is City Council that actually approved the fee increases, though the current mayor, Mike Bell, did sign the legislation.

And it was City Council who decided, along with the previous mayor, to put the trash tax on the water bill and threaten people with the cut off of their water service if they didn't pay the trash tax and recycling fee (which was supposed to be reduced to zero but is now a permanent part of the city's revenue).

Of course, this doesn't even get to the minimum charge structure. If you're traveling or frugal with your water consumption, it doesn't matter. If you don't use a certain amount of water each month, they'll bill you a minimum. And your sewer service charge is tied to your water usage.

Granted, the city council and Democrat mayors (since 1990) ignored maintenance and replacement needs of the water/sewer infrastructure over the years, choosing instead to spend limited tax dollars on their own pet projects, so we do have some serious needs in the area, as the recent sink holes and water main breaks demonstrate. And we're still dealing with EPA regulations that are impacting the costs.

But connecting the problems which have been decades in the making with the current mayor, who is rather good at public relations, might be a bit hard.

In fact, Bell, as an independent, would have a great response by saying it was the Democrats who ignored the problem for so long and he's actually dealing with instead of 'kicking the can down the road' (one of his oft-used phrases).

He inherited a mess and he's cleaning it up.

While it might not be as valid an issue for the actual campaign, it's definitely a fun one for a fundraiser.

Here is the flyer:

*** Aside: I have not decided which mayoral candidate to support in the upcoming election. ***

Toledo politicians: pandering to the old while sticking it to the rest of us

It's election season and some candidates are falling all over themselves trying to promise things to others - with our tax money, that is, not their own.

The latest is the proposal to allow seniors a discount on water, sewer and trash tax bills simply because they're older. Of course, they're more likely to vote, so this is not a surprise.

Mayoral candidates and current council members Joe McNamara and D. Michael Collins are claiming to be upset that the state of Ohio just passed a law in their two-year budget bill that restores income means testing for the Homestead Exemption on property taxes.

In the past, homeowners over 65 years of age received a discount on their property taxes if they had low incomes. Gov. Ted Strickland changed that during his term and made it all seniors, regardless of income. Now, as part of the tax reforms just passed, it's back to a means-tested formula and only those making less than $30,000 a year are eligible. They would get a $25,000 reduction of the property value when computing their taxes.

But the city's discounts for water, sewer and trash are based upon eligibility for the Homestead Exemption, so with that changing, clearly Toledo must change its laws as well in order to pander to seniors - right?

But why only for seniors?

If water, sewer and trash tax rates are too high for seniors, aren't they too high for everyone?

And if we're going to perform means testing, why not do so in general? What difference does it make if you're 25, 35, 45, 55 or 65 if you're making less than $30,000???

According to City-Data, the median income in Toledo in 2009 was $32,325. That's down from the 2000 level of $32,546.

This means that half the people in the city make more than $32,325 and half make less.

Obviously, if we offered a discount to people making less than $30,000 about half the city would end up paying less and that certainly won't work when the city is telling us they need even more to repair our aging infrastructure and just recently voted to raise the rates we all pay.

Of course, if half of Toledo pays less, the other half has to pay more - just to even things out.

So how will the city afford these discounts?

Who know? Who cares? But doesn't it sound great on the campaign trail?

Fallacies surrounding the 'privatization' of Toledo trash service

Let's get this perfectly clear - Toledo is not 'privatizing' its trash service even if it decides to go with a contract with the county which would contract with a private company to do the collection.

True privatization would not have government involved at all.

The local paper's take on the matter, which actually supports the proposal currently before council, is that the city 'subsidizes' the trash service:

"Most Toledo residents who recycle pay the city $8.50 a month to collect their refuse. Senior households that are eligible for homestead-exemption discounts pay $5 a month. These fees do not cover the $16.5 million annual cost of trash collection; the city pays about $7.5 million a year to subsidize the service.

That expense has become harder to bear during the recession. It has required the city to shift money to its general fund from its capital budget, restricting the city's ability to fix streets and make long-term infrastructure improvements."

First, all tax dollars go to support city services and the trash tax referenced goes into the general fund - not a fund dedicated to paying just for the service. This means the trash 'fee' is actually a 'tax' to be used for anything council decides and not just for the collection of garbage.

Second, our 'temporary' (since the 1980s) 3/4% payroll income tax was supposed to be going to provide this service. Now, in addition to our taxes and our fee, the city still needs more money - not just for trash - but overall. If council had eliminated spending in other areas, it would have the money for this 'service' which many believe is a proper function of government.

Lastly, the editorial board seems to think that council had 'no other option' but to steal from the Capital Improvements Fund in order to meet it's annually general fund operational expenses. Nothing could be further than the truth. Council could have made tough choices in the past to STOP SPENDING, but that's not what they did.

My take on such things is that if you can look in the Yellow Pages and find companies who do a function, there is no need for government to do it as well. But if we're going to 'privatize' our trash, why don't we just go all the way instead of contracting with another governmental entity (Lucas County), which will then assign it to a different governmental entity (the Lucas County Solid Waste District) which will then issue a contract for a private company to do the work?

In the suburban communities, the property owner contracts for the services directly and it seems to work just fine. Despite the naysayers who want to claim that *some* Toledo residents aren't responsible enough to do this kind of thing on their own, I believe that it could work as well inside the city limits as it does elsewhere.

After all, if going with a private supplier is *good*, wouldn't eliminating all the middle men be even *better*???

The problem isn't our trash service or even how much it's costing. The problem is the overall costs of government relative to the amount of revenue they receive. Government spends more than it takes in, and Toledo is no exception, as our years of deficits clearly demonstrate.

No matter what plan the Council goes with, we will still be paying - one way or the other. Don't get me wrong - we should, each of us, pay for our garbage service. But if I'm going to pay, why don't I get to choose how I will do so, with the ability to not pay government if I opt for a private supplier who will give me a fee based upon my usage of the service?

Sadly, that's using logic and reason and we don't seem to do that here. Instead, the thinking that got us into this position in the first place will continue to permeate our area - until there's no one left.

Same old, same old on Toledo's budget

Toledo is facing a budget deficit. That's nothing new.

City Council has to pass a balanced budget by the end of March and, counting today, there are only three days left and still no budget. That's nothing new, either.

Council is debating 'privatizing' garbage service and, though the recent incarnation of the idea has some twists to it, even that is nothing new.

They're even considering - again - taking money from the Capital Improvements Fund to balance the General Fund. So we have a 'rob Peter to pay Paul' solution which, as well, is nothing new.

And they are discussing 'raising' the revenue estimates to cover the spending estimates, though our recent record is that we don't reach the increased targets for revenue, though we often exceed the targets for spending. Again, nothing new.

Toledo will pass a balanced budget by the end of the month - of that I am sure, though what form it will take is still any one's guess. I don't agree with all the individual line items, but I do applaud Mayor Mike Bell and members of city council for a more 'amicable and open' discussion than what has existed in the past. So while the tone is 'new' - the issues aren't.

Will we spend up to $60,000 a year in order to hire a lobbyist to represent us in Columbus? Will doing so be an implicit admission that our state reps are failing to do their jobs? Will voters even care - about the expenditure or the implications of the council thinking they *need* a lobbyist?

Will we turn over our garbage collection to the county which will then contract out to a private company who will then charge us roughly the same as what we are currently paying? If we do so, where will all the employees who were doing that job go since the city, by contract, has to find jobs for them within the city??? Will we really *save* any money when we'll be paying for the old garbage collectors as well as the ones employed by the new contractor?

Will we be able to eliminate the garbage tax? Or is it exactly what people claimed all along - just another tax council was able to pass off as a fee to fund their continued overspending?

Strangely, I could substitute any number of minor spending items for the lobbyist and have published this exact post several times in the past.

Perhaps I'm just cynical today, but we seem to be having the same discussions over and over again. Some of the names and the spending items are different, but too many of them are the same - the same old, same old that just demoralizes the taxpayers and voters of this city.

No wonder we're losing population and businesses. Who is 'stuck on stupid' now?

Toledo trash tax going up?

The City of Toledo is looking at another budget deficit for 2011 - this time around the $5 million mark. Which is no surprise considering that Council has not been as serious as they need to be about reducing expenditures.

They're probably thinking that if they can continue to push the costs into future years (as they repeatedly done in the past), the economy will eventually recover enough to address most of the problem. It's hopeful, but certainly not a solution to the continuing budgetary problems the city faces.

As this has been an ongoing problem, an ongoing solution has been the imposition of taxes. Under the guise of a 'fee,' they've passed a trash tax - basically charging homes for the collection of garbage, despite the fact that our 3/4% payroll tax (and just about all other taxes) is supposed to be covering that service along with the basic services of government.

And just like with most government taxes, it was sold as being temporary with a reduction over time to zero, only to find that it's gone up ... and up ... and perhaps, up again.

An item that was not discussed in last week's council agenda meeting made an appearance last night during the regular meeting for a first reading:

Amend TMC Sec. 963.03(b) to increase refuse collection fee, $15/$8.50/$5 to $12.50/$7.5

Prior to March 31, 2010, the tax was scheduled to be $8.50 per month for residents but would be only $1.00 per month if you recycled. Facing - yes, you guessed it - budgetary shortfalls last year, council scheduled the tax to be $15.00 per month for everyone. But then they put Issue 5 on the ballot, a measure to move money around between general and capital improvement funds, and Mayor Mike Bell promised a reduced trash tax if the measure passed.

It did pass so the tax went to $15 for people who don't recycle, $8.50 for those who do and $5 if you have a homestead exemption.

This ordinance would actually reduce the tax by $2.50 for people who don't recycle, and by $1.00 for those who do.

***Side note: Why they decide the people paying more should get a larger reduction is beyond me - they certainly don't apply that logic to income taxes!
***

But those with homestead exemptions who are currently paying $5 will have to pay $7.50 - the new recycling rate. According to the latest Census Bureau figures, roughly 13% of Toledo residents are over 65 and eligible for the homestead exemption. Unfortunately, I couldn't easily determine how many households that is - or if that is a larger or smaller number than the number of households that are not recycling.

It appears, though, that seniors will be paying more to counter the decrease non-recyclers are going to get.

Of course, I think the trash tax is wrong and that we shouldn't have one in the first place. But since it appears council is going to do it, it would be preferable for them to not change it every year based upon their ongoing failure to present a budget that has the city living within its means.

City's trash numbers don't add up

Toledo City Council held a committee meeting yesterday to discuss 'turning over' the city's trash pickup to Lucas County. Dave Welsh, the director of public service, gave the committee information about the income and expenses of the service. According to today's paper (link), here is the report:

Dave Welch, the city's director of public service, said the trash operation costs Toledo $16.5 million annually. A monthly $8.50 trash fee generates about $9 million toward that cost. The rest is paid for with income taxes collected by the city.

"If you want to make this a true enterprise fund that pays for itself, you would have to raise that monthly fee [to] $17.25," Mr. Welch said.

But the city's own budget figures show something else completely. This is the line item for Refuse Fee revenue from the 2011 proposed operating budget:

24100 - REFUSE COLLECTION REVENUES:
2008: $ 4,966,035.04
2009: $ 4,700,000.00
2010: $ 13,124,736.84 (budgeted)
2011: $ 8,928,000.00 (proposed)

In addition, there is a line item for Refuse Disposal income:

406910 - REFUSE DISPOSAL
2008: $ 368,279.39
2009: $ 350,000.00
2010: $ 375,396.80 (budgeted)
2011: $ 651,000.00 (proposed

So if the trash fee only generates $9 million a year, why did the city collect $13 million last year in fees and another $375,400 for individual disposal? If he was referring only to the 2011 proposed/projected collections and only for the garbage tax itself, his statement is understandable. But it's not a complete picture.

Then he says that the trash operation costs the city $16.5 million annually. However, the budget shows the following for expenses:

24100 - REFUSE COLLECTION EXPENSES:
2008: $ 11,603,270.67
2009: $ 10,192,454.93
2010: $ 7,714,761.53 (budgeted - though it was originally $7,211,259.06)
2011: $ 5,438,208.36 (proposed)

This is a far cry from $16 million.

Is it possible that there are other costs not described in the budget as 'refuse'? I suppose, but when a citizen looks at the budget and adds up anything with 'refuse' or 'waste' in the line item description, they don't total $16 million.

The Bell administration is to be commended for reducing the refuse collection expenses. The cost in 2010 was a 24% decrease from 2009, even though the city did forget to budget additional costs for fuel for having to go up and down each street twice with the automated trucks.

But when council is told the expenses are $16 million, despite the budget showing it's not been anywhere near that amount for at least the last 3 years, questions should be asked.

Ohio stimulus dollars

I received a press release the other day from the Ohio Republican Party talking about how Ohio has spent its so-called 'stimulus dollars.'

From the release:

As a follow-up to Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Dayton on Monday, we thought it would be helpful to look at where Ohio's "stimulus" dollars are being spent:

* $1 million on road signs to tell Ohioans which highway projects were funded by federal stimulus dollars. (The Plain Dealer, 9/9/09)

* $11 million to outsource an appliance rebate program to a Texas company, which then hired workers in El Salvador. (The Plain Dealer, 7/29/10)

* $145,000 to rent "marble-clad" banquet halls, high-end hotels and conference centers for teacher workshops in Columbus. (Columbus Dispatch, 12/6/09)

* $1.4 million to pay speakers at a Columbus City Schools workshop, including thousands of dollars to a company owned by the former school board president. (Columbus Dispatch, 12/6/09)

* $800,000 for "quiet zones" in North Ridgeville, OH, where the mayor admits the project is "a long way from the top priority." (The Chronicle Telegram, 5/22/09)

* $63,000 for the Ohio Department of Agriculture to buy fish food. (CNN, 1/25/10)

* $4.5 million for Cleveland City Schools to provide "family liaisons" that help parents "find their way through the school district bureaucracy." (The Plain Dealer, 11/06/09)

* Unknown amount of funds to fix curbs on Gov. Strickland's street, which a local TV station calls "one of the most prestigious areas of Central Ohio where million-dollar mansions sit secluded behind well manicured landscaping." (WCMH-Columbus, 8/27/10)

* $500,000 for a consultant to design a recycling campaign for new trash cans in Dayton that use "microchips to track citizen participation." (Dayton Daily News, 2/11/10)

* $300,000 to open and operate a city-owned pool in Youngstown. (Vindicator, 6/12/10)

* $200,000 for a Toledo ship museum to remove asbestos from a 1911 ship. (Fox Toledo, 7/22/10)

* $336,000 to collect and document flowers and plants in Ohio. (WCMH-Columbus, 8/5/10)

* $267 million for home weatherization projects in Ohio, 40 percent of which later failed state inspection. (Columbus Dispatch, 3/14/10)

* $1.5 million to install fencing on an Akron bridge to keep people from jumping. (Akron Beacon Journal, 3/27/09)

Now, I understand how some people might think that government spending creates jobs - but every historical, empirical, objective evaluation of such spending shows it can only 'create' temporary jobs - not the kind of economic growth that is necessary to sustain a turn-around.

And if having the government pay people to work actually was such a good thing, we could employ half the unemployed by giving them a spoon and telling them to dig a whole while employing the other half to fill it. There's no economic growth in doing that.

And many of these types of projects are similar. They take money from the people actually paying taxes and spend it on 'make work' projects or on things that the federal government shouldn't be paying for.

What a warped system we have. We 'rejoice' and politicians 'brag' about getting this money only to find that it ends up costing us more in the long run. How much additional money would I have in my pocket if I wasn't helping to pay for pools in Youngstown, recycling advertising programs in Dayton (not to mention in addition to the huge trash tax I'm paying in Toledo), liaisons at Cleveland schools, curbs at the governor's mansion or fish food. And how much money would I have for weatherizing my home if I weren't helping to pay for everyone else to do the same?

This is a failed logic and I hope the majority of voters are going to vote against such programs and politicians who support such programs. And that non-voters realize what's going on and begin to vote.

Another budget deficit for Toledo?

This headline shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. I heard a news clip this morning that said the City of Toledo is looking at another budget deficit for 2011.

Part of that deficit is due to spending obligations carried over from 2010. As I wrote in May in "New TPPA agreement just postpones the inevitable," any money 'saved' in 2010 wasn't really 'saved' if it had to still be paid in 2011 - especially if the cost would be higher next year. From that commentary:

In fact, deferring the overtime payments to 2011 and then paying it at the 2011 increased pay rates means that this little deal will actually cost the taxpayers 3.5% more than it would cost us if we just went ahead and paid it when earned!

That's not a savings!

So now we're hearing comments that we could have a budget deficit in 2011 because of this agreement that was supposed to save us money.

Common sense should have told everyone that there would be no savings when you defer compensation and then pay it at a higher hourly rate. But city council members voted to do just that.

I can only wonder how much the trash tax will be next year.

Trash Tax advisory

Statement from Karen Shanahan from today's press conference:

Citizen’s Advisory regarding Refuse fee lawsuit and class action.
May 24, 2010

There are two issues regarding the refuse fee and this Citizen’s Advisory is an alert to all residents of Toledo who pay the fee. It is to address the request for class action, which was denied once, but will be heard again by the Common Pleas Court. Would you want to be included if the “fee” is determined to be illegal?

Let me start with some numbers:

• $28,000,000 – revenue received or projected from the Trash Tax in 3.5 years

• 100,000 –approximate number of residences being bill quarterly for the Trash tax.

• 122 – number or residents identified who protested the fee to the Department of Public Utilities.

• 50 – number of protest letters the City can find.

• 1 – number of persons included at this point by Common Pleas Court in the class action.

Let’s say a robber robbed a bank and got away to ½ a million dollars. As he flees the scene, a local citizen stops the thief who is then arrested and the money is recovered. Now the citizen had a checking account with the bank with $500 in it, and the courts tell him, you get your money back because you caught the thief, but the other 5000 investors whose money was stolen… they don’t get their money back because they didn’t catch the thief, in fact, the thief gets to keep the rest money.

Preposterous, ridiculous, you say!

Well, it’s happening with the request for class action in this lawsuit.

The original decision by the court was that only those who file a formal protest could be included.
In essence we did that on behalf of everyone when we filed the lawsuit 2 years ago. It was to serve as the official protest against the tax and read as follows (CASE: G-4801-CI-200802348-000):

1. This class action seeks … compensatory damages, …. a preliminary and permanent injunction, …. for unjust enrichment due to Defendant’s wrongful taxation of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s class by administratively approving an additional tax to collect refuse without the approval of Toledo City Council and without the approval of voters by referendum as this is a tax on property owners.

8. On information and belief, Plaintiffs’ class includes over 100,000 housing units, but this class is limited only to those who pay this tax.

9. This action is properly maintained as a class action because in all pertinent aspects the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals have predominately identical claims.

10. This tax is not completely identical for all members of the Plaintiffs’ class because some individuals own multiple unit apartment buildings, and some individuals receive a discount for recycling.

11. Each member of the Plaintiffs’ class is required to pay this tax or face the following penalties by the city: (1) terminate water service; (2) forward the account to an outside collection agency; (3) transfer the delinquency to any other property owned by the account holder; (4) bring an action at law for collection; (5) or place a lien on the property.

What constitutes class action? As defined by © 1999 Timothy E. Eble: Standards For Class Certification Under the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure: A Concise Summary

• Ohio Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) contains five explicit requirements that must each be satisfied when seeking class certification.
• First, the plaintiff must establish that an identifiable class actually exists
• Second, the named representatives must be members of that class
• Thereafter, the plaintiff must demonstrate:

a) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable;
b) there are questions of law or fact common to the class;
c) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class;
d) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class;
e) Common questions predominate over questions effecting only individual members; and, that a class action is superior to other available methods of resolving the claims.

The City has already demonstrated they are unable to record and maintain protests submitted by concerned residents. When I asked for copies of protests received in an open records request, they sent 54 protests letters; of those 9 matched emails received stating a protest was filed; however, there were no letters for an additional 68 protesters who notified us they had filed.

One must conclude it is obvious that class action is necessary to ensure everyone is included according to point

a): the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable

If the City cannot account for 68 protest letters we know exist, how many more were submitted that just disappeared? How would the city manage 100,000 protests?

We residents of Toledo must stand up and make our will known, class action is essential to ensure the city does not profit from this illegal tax. They must be held accountable.

As the thief who robs a bank, we would never allow him to keep his booty, so likewise we must demand the same decision for a government who blatantly disregarded the Ohio Revised Code when it legislated this tax.

I suggest further that every resident of Ohio should watch the case and brace themselves if the courts do not rule in favor of residents of Toledo, for as Toledo goes, so likewise will other desperate governments of Ohio as this is easy revenue with no limits.

Take action now, quickly and with conviction as the Courts are soon to rule on class action. I suggest you call the Common Pleas Court and ask that every resident be included in the class action.

Common Pleas Phone # is: 419-213-4484
CASE: G -4801 -CI -200802348-000

For questions contact:
Scott Ciolek, Attorney, 419-491-7270

For information:
Shanahanselect.blogspot.com

City 'misplaced' trash tax protest letters

This in via email:

Karen Shanahan will present a Citizen's Advisory regarding the Refuse Fee and Class Action representation regarding the Fee. A call to action by the residents of Toledo.

When: Monday 10:15 a.m.
Where: In front of One Government Center

Karen has been keeping us updated on this issue on her blog where her last post detailed the request for public records on how many people filed a protest against the trash tax. I know that I've filed the protest form she provided with every one of my water payments since the form was introduced.

But apparently, the city "has "misplaced" most of the protest letters," according to a comment Karen left on my earlier post "Trash tax and broken promises: we told you so!"

How convenient for the city - they just happen to 'misplace' all the letters that could be used against them in a lawsuit.

Thankfully, I kept a copy of the letter I sent, but I wonder how many other people thought about doing so?

If you can, please come out to support Karen and help fight the this illegal tax.

Trash tax and broken promises: we told you so!

Well, well, well... I really hate it when we warn people what's to come in terms of taxation and we're right.

In this case, the "we" is me, Karen Shanahan, WSPD and any other person who commented on the radio or on the blogs about the trash tax never going away. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised about the most recent broken promise on the trash tax considering all the other statements made that have been 'modified' since the tax first went into effect.

As part of the budget debacle, Mayor Mike Bell recommended and Toledo City Council passed (not unanimously) an increase in the trash tax. They all call it a fee, but it IS a tax. For those (like me) who recycle, the fee went from $1 per month to $15 per month. We were promised that, if we passed Issue 5 on the primary ballot May 4th, the $15 would be reduced to $8.50 per month. The measure passed 55% to 45%.

They lied.

The ordinance introduced at last night's city council agenda meeting:

Amending Section 963.03(b) of the Toledo Municipal Code to revise the monthly refuse collection fees; and declaring an emergency.

SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
Upon passage of Issue 5, the Administration is proposing a revised refuse fee structure of $5.00 per month for residents who are eligible for the Homestead Exemption as determined by the County Auditor and $10.00 per month for other City residents.

Yes, you read that correctly: $10 per month.

In case you're mathematically challenged, that's a 900% increase.
It's also an 18% increase over what was promised. And why, exactly, is the administration reneging on their promise?

It's easier for them.

"Easier"??? They've been doing two fees (recycling and non-recycling) for several years now, so how is this suddenly 'easier'? They've established fines for people who say they're going to recycle and then don't. They've given us (and charged us) for two different containers to make it 'easier' to recycle. They've told us that recycling rates are up. They even voted to sell landfill space because we've increased our recycling which has given us space in the landfill that can generate income.

Maybe they should think about how 'easy' this tax is for us to pay? Because it's not - and the last thing most of us are concerned about is paying more to make it 'easier' for the politicians!

Lisa Renee at Glass City Jungle has a summary of the conversation during the agenda meeting. From her notes:

"(Councilman Steve) Steel said the administration plan is different than before, (Deputy Mayor of Operations Steve) Herwat said it was, that they felt a standard across the board would be easier to administer."

This is a broken promise, plain and simple.

A majority of voters approved Issue 5 based upon the promises made regarding the roll-back of the trash tax. While I oppose the trash tax in any amount and opposed Issue 5 for its diversion of Capital Improvement Program funds into the general fund, I expected the promises made to be kept if the measure was approved. As did all city residents.

The fire fighters had agreed to pay their employee portion of their pensions as part of the concessions negotiated during the budget process. If Issue 5 passed, they were promised reimbursement of those amounts as well as a return to the city picking up everything they paid prior to the concessions.

Do you think the administration is going to break that promise the union?

No - but they're perfectly willing to break their promise to the taxpayers!!!!

Perhaps those who are cynical about elected officials' promises have every reason to be...

Also in the news was the rejection of the contract negotiated between the city and Teamsters Local 20 for the refuse workers. They rejected the agreed-upon terms unanimously.

And of course they did! The other unions, through one means or another, have gotten back all they originally gave up so why should the refuse workers not stand pat on their current benefits and wages?

So now the taxpayers are screwed - again - and the city unions are not really making any concessions whatsoever. So much for the 'shared pain' everyone was talking about in March.

And as I write this, I'm listening to Mayor Mike Bell being interviewed on NewsTalk 1370 WSPD. And he's saying that yes, he's managed to get a balanced budget for this year and will look at all the costs he's pushed into 2011 between now and the end of the year when he hopes to see increased revenues as a result of an improving economy.

But as so many are fond of asking, "what if" we don't see an improved economy in Toledo and those hoped-for revenues don't materialize? All we've done is postpone the inevitable.

How much do you think the trash tax will increase then?

No wonder we're losing population faster than we can count. People are disgusted and who can blame them?

***Note: This post probably doesn't reflect just how angry, livid, irate I am over the issue. But there really aren't words for the level of outrage I'm feeling.
***

Post-primary thoughts

I've been a bit busy the last several days and haven't had time to do a post, so my apologies to those who sent me a message asking if things were okay. Yes, they are - just busy with clients who actually pay me. :)

So our primary is over and the political parties have their representatives for the general election.

Several things stand out in this election, so let's get right to them:

Lucas County Commissioner Race:

* George Sarantou's name recognition was clearly an advantage over his two competitors for the Republican nomination for Lucas County Commissioner. I did a dawn patrol (putting out candidate signs prior to the polls opening) and saw that he had most - if not all - the polling locations covered. Dan Steingraber had signs at the polls, but George had signs at all the entrances to the locations. There is something to be said for 'local' knowledge. I did not see any Andy Glenn signs, but that could have just been a timing issue. I guess endorsements from The Blade and Joe the Plumber didn't count for much among Republican voters.

* Carol Contrada's win on the Democrat side surprised quite a few people, considering how strongly The Blade pushed Ben Krompak. Carol is well-respected and has a good reputation, even among Republicans who disagree with her philosophy of government and some of her votes. Perhaps after witnessing Ben Konop's performance in office, Democrats decided to reject a similar type of individual and go with something a bit more 'proven'? I don't know - not being a Democrat - but I expect the race between Carol and George to be less 'exciting' than one between any Republican and Krompak. I also expect the race will focus more on issues than personality and I'm curious to see how Carol will use the 'not from Toledo' advantage against George who will use the 'not a Democrat' one.

(Yes - I know ... there are many who think George is a democrat, but that doesn't mean they'll pick Carol over him....)

State Issue 1:

I'm disappointed that this passed, but not surprised. The last thing Ohio needs is more debt. But with both political parties and just about 'every one who is anyone' saying it will create jobs - what did I expect?

Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog pointed out the serious problem with the numbers being touted:

QUICK UPDATE: One hears Mr. Harris brag about fuel cells. Here’s a related PR release from a year ago –

Ohio Third Frontier has invested over $80 million in fuel cells through a variety of different programs, which has resulted in the creation or retention of 430 jobs with an average salary of $68,431. Overall, the Ohio Third Frontier has created, capitalized or attracted more than 600 companies, has created nearly 55,000 direct and indirect jobs and helped create $6.6 billion in economic impact in Ohio, a 9:1 return on investment.

Points relating to the bolded items:

* $80 mil for 430 jobs is $186,000 per job.
* This claim only works if you believe that 8,527 direct jobs magically create 46,473 more indirect jobs. C’mon. This is the same type of math abuse promoted by the Obama administration to claim mega-gazillion “created and saved” jobs in the bogus stimulus plan — and it’s only theoretically “valid” when unemployment is 7.5% or lower. In Ohio, it’s really 11.5%. This “created and saved” nonsense seems to have become so embarrassing that even Team Obama has been recently ramping back the hype.

I also couldn't stand the commercials and advertisements touting this as 'not government, but people.' Who are they kidding? It's obviously a government program if I'm voting on whether or not the state can borrow money to give to selected companies. Roland Hansen had quite a bit to say about this aspect, as well.

I even had a conversation with a friend who supported the issue because it has really 'helped' a group he belongs to. That's all well and good, but obviously you support a program that gives you money.

So many people succumb to the idea that government can create jobs. If they rightly reject that presumption, they still believe government can 'help' create jobs. But the right way to 'help' create jobs in Ohio is not to borrow money and distribute it to selected companies or specific industries. The right way is to have a business-friendly environment that makes it easy for ALL companies and industries to make money.

Thanks to Issue 1, my company - and my husband's, and my neighbor's - will be taxed (one way or the other) to repay the principle and interest on these bonds. However, because none of us are in a 'fad' field, we'll never see any of the monetary assistance that a select few will. That's NOT how you 'bring' jobs to the state.

But don't you feel good knowing you voted for "jobs"???

Issue 3 Toledo Public School Income Tax:

A bright spot on election day - the voters actually saying NO to a tax increase! Of course, TPS officials are threatening to cut things that matter most to parents (like transportation and athletics) but not even mentioning across-the-board spending cuts or cuts in salaries/wages/benefits.

I heard a news clip of Board President Bob Vasquez saying they just have to have 'new money.' Where in the world does he think the taxpayers are going to get the 'new money' to give to him? Obviously, voters 'get it.' But I expect this will be on the ballot again with a larger push for passage. And Toledoans have a habit of finally giving in when it comes to taxes (remember COSI that took three times on the ballot to get passed?).

Issue 5 Toledo re-allocation of the 3/4% Payroll Income Tax:

Like many others, I strongly objected to giving Toledo Council and the Administration the ability to divert money from the Capital Improvement Fund to the General Fund if they 'need' it. To me, this was short-sighted and only serves to allow them to continue spending money they really don't have.

Additionally, I despised the fact that I have to pay more in a Trash Tax to support unsustainable expenditures by the city.

Adding insult to injury was the fact that the concessions given up by the unions earlier this year are going to be 'returned' now that the measure has passed. So the unionized employees of the city won't be paying their full employee portion of their pensions and most will pay nothing at all, with us picking up both the city's portion and theirs!

But I'm paying a 750% increase per month in a trash tax so they can have this unsustainable (there's that word, again) perk.

I do believe, however, that many voters who said yes to this might be inclined to give Mayor Mike Bell the benefit of the doubt on this measure. He's said it's temporary and he's known to be a man of his word. Even though Toledoans have a serious problem with the definition of 'temporary' when it comes to taxes, they may have decided to give Bell this time to work on the overall city budget without having to scramble for millions at the last minute.

We shall see...

Failed logic on Issue 5 from Toledo politicians

I just received a press release from Mayor Mike Bell:

Bell To Urge Support for Issue 5
Ballot Initiative Will Help Reduce Garbage Fee

Mayor Michael P. Bell will hold a press conference this afternoon, Tuesday, April 27 at 3:30 p.m. outside of Council Chambers encouraging voters to support Issue 5 on the May ballot. He will also announce the 2010 capital program which includes 87 lane miles of street resurfacing.

What: Mayor Bell Urges Support for Issue 5

When: Tuesday, April 27, 2010
3:30 p.m.

Where: One Government Center
Outside Council Chambers

###

This is the second time a Toledo politician has said that voters should support a transfer of capital funds (CIP) into the daily operating (general) fund in order to reduce the garbage tax.

What the politicians fail to point out is that they just raised the garbage tax!

My trash tax went from $1 per month to $15 per month. That's a 1400% increase!

So they've raised our taxes and then tell us that if we allow them to take money away from our long-term needs (like roads and infrastructure), they'll reduce that tax. Now, they'll only reduce it to $8.50 per month for people like me who recycle. That's still a 750% increase, but I'm supposed to be so grateful that I'll make a decision to sacrifice my long-term needs for a short-term reduction.

Of course, there's no promise whatsoever that after they deplete the CIP account they won't turn again to the garbage tax to provide income to cover their daily operating costs.

In fact, much of the money they'll move into the general fund if Issue 5 passes will go directly to the unions for the 'concessions' they made. Under the terms of the concessions, if Issue 5 passes, the unions will get reimbursed for the items they gave up.

I cannot be more clear about our situation: it is unsustainable! We have costs that far outweigh the income and these 'temporary' solutions do not solve the problem - merely postpone it.

It is short-sighted and we need to tell them all NO! on Issue 5. Our elected officials need to make the same difficult decisions we're all making in our daily lives and start cutting out non-mandatory things. Then they need to go through the Toledo Municipal Code and start repealing ordinances that present a drain on the city finances. If they instituted a board or commission by ordinance and then funded it, they can repeal the ordinance and de-fund it.

I cannot afford $180 a year which is what we're currently paying. I also cannot afford $102 a year (if Issue 5 passes) AND the yearly costs of re-aligning two vehicles because our roads are so bad, not to mention paying so that employees of the city can get their portion of their pension contribution covered by me. That money should be going into my own personal 401(k) which doesn't have an 'employer' portion since I'm self-employed.

I suspect many of you can't afford this either.

Government has got to get its costs in line - and they won't do that if we keep giving them money to continue their current practices.

Friday Round-Up 4-23-10

There are just too many issues I'd like to blog about and not enough time in the day, so here's a round-up:

* George Sarantou, a sitting Toledo city councilman and candidate for Lucas County commissioner, is urging people to approve Issue 5 on the May ballot which would divert monies from our Capital Improvement Fund to the General Fund. Oh - and he's a registered Republican.

Sarantou has been chairman of council Finance Committee for quite a while now, during which time the city has had increasing yearly deficits. He says that allowing the money to be diverted from our long-term needs like roads and major improvements, will allow the city to reduce the new trash tax of $15 that he supported. Yes - he voted to increase our taxes.

However, approval of Issue 5 will only reduce the new tax to $8.50 per month for people who recycle. However, that's still an increase over the $1 per month we're currently paying. So he's supporting a tax increase. And, he supporting diverting money into the general fund because they (the city council) is still spending more money than they take in! It's just a shell game, moving money around because they will not do what is necessary to bring spending in line.

* Exigent Circumstances. It's a term Toledoans have learned over the last several months. Having the city declare 'exigent circumstances' allows it to impose cuts in wages/benefits/pension contributions outside of the collective bargaining process. City Council voted in favor of exigent circumstances and set some criteria for those cuts.

Since then, several of the city unions have agreed to voluntary concessions, though some of those concessions are only for the remainder of the year and some of them will be restored if Issue 5, discussed above, is passed by voters.

It appears that 'exigent circumstances' was a very clever bargaining tool to get the unions back to the table and agree to cuts. However, now that these unions have done so (only the police unions - patrolmen and command officers - have voted down the proposals), the exigent circumstances have been removed and the new agreements approved by council.

The problem is that the financial deficits of the city have not be fully addressed. We have unsustainable obligations and not enough money and many of those obligations will be back up to the high levels as of January 1, 2011. This is part of the reason Sarantou and other members of council want to take money out of the CIP budget...

If exigent circumstances was used only as a negotiating tool, it cannot be used again. The unions have now seen that card played and will not make the same mistake in 2011. If, however, Mayor Mike Bell uses the rest of the year to truly bring the contracts into line with available funding, it will have been a card well-played.

We'll see what happens between now and December 31.

* There's something wrong with the people supporting Ohio's state Issue 1. The proponent radio ads are promoting this as 'people' and not 'government.' However, this is a government program, so I guess perhaps I'm just too logical to 'get it.'

Issue 1 would allow the state to issue bonds - read: borrow money - to offer to businesses for certain types of 'economic development.' The borrowed money has to be repaid, including interest. This means that the state's general fund dollars - our tax dollars - must be used at some point in time to make those payments. While this may not be a 'new' tax, it is still a program that relies upon limited and declining tax dollars to fund it.

It also means that government - whether by an appointed board or by elected officials - will determine who gets the money from the account. Government will be picking winners and losers in terms of the funding. This is not the role of government.

Instead of taxing Ohioans to pay for borrowing and interest in order to give money to selected organizations or companies, why not just lower the overall tax rate so everyone benefits? That would certainly do more to promote economic growth and jobs than anything else. And it wouldn't put government in the position of deciding who gets to succeed thanks to help from the government - and who doesn't.

Even in you believe Issue 1 is a good idea that should be supported, you must agree that commercials saying it's people and not government doing this are wrong and intentionally contradictory to the truth.

Trash tax, recycling and the city landfill

I know - not exactly what you'd like to read about, but this issue and how it's been handled is typical of the warped thinking that goes on in government.

Let's start several years ago when the City of Toledo began telling residents that we were running out of space in our landfill. I don't recall all the research I did on the issue and the specifics of the amount of time left and the options, but I do recall concluding that the city was prudent to begin looking at options to extend the life of the landfill.

Recycling is an obvious option that would cut down on reusable waste in the facility and would provide a 'raw material' for various industries specializing in recycled products. So recycling seemed like a good idea.

The City of Toledo had tried to get out of its curbside recycling program when I was serving as a Commissioner (2003 through 2006) because it was costing so much money. However, the entire county would have incurred much higher costs if the largest municipality (Toledo) did not have a curb-side recycling program. (thank you state and federal governments for your mandates!) So Toledo administration at the time (Jack Ford was mayor) decided not to eliminate that program.

Shortly thereafter, financial conditions in the city began to deteriorate - rapidly. So the city decided that the two factors - a need for more tax dollars and the landfill space - presented a great opportunity to tax the public. Hence the trash tax.

Karen Shanahan sued the city over the tax saying that it wasn't a 'fee' as they claimed, but was a general revenue tax that should have gone to the voters for approval. That case is still in court. But her comments - and the comments of others at the time, including my own - have been proven correct: that if the city gets away with doing this, they will turn to this tax whenever they are short on money. And that's exactly what has happened.

Since the tax was first imposed, the amount has changed. Originally, you were supposed to pay one fee for 'garbage' and a lesser one if you recycled. The lesser amount was to encourage the recycling, thus helping the landfill space issue. But because curb-side recycling was not very wide-spread, the city expected a significant yearly sum from those who were going to pay the full amount.

The tax was supposed to be reduced on a regular basis until those who recycled paid nothing. Unfortunately for the tax payers, though, the city faced further financial woes and 'suspended' the planned reduction. As of the first of 2010, the tax was $8.50/month for those who don't recycle and $1/month for those who do.

As part of the budget passed at the end of March, the city council approved a plan from Mayor Mike Bell to raise the trash tax to $15/month, regardless of recycling.

Just recently, Deputy Mayor Steve Herwatt was in the news talking about the huge increase the city has seen in recycling. I believe this is a result of the new containers and the fact that residents no longer have to separate their recyclables. As part of the original pilot trash program, I know that being able to put all my recyclable products into a single container made it much easier to recycle, though I did so prior to the arrival of the test containers. So it comes as no surprise to me that having a single, large can in which to dump all those items means that more people are actually sorting their garbage.

This is great news for our landfill, but ... the city still needs money.

So what is the city going to do? Sell space in the landfill!!!!!!

Yep, you've got that right! An item on city council's agenda tonight is this:

O-138-10 Authorizing the Mayor and the Director of Public Service to enter into a five (5)-year Agreement to accept Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generated and collected within Lucas County, Ohio from Stevens Disposal & Recycling Service (“Stevens”), at the Hoffman Road Landfill, to generate revenue of approximately $600,000 per year; authorizing the acceptance and deposit of revenues into the General Fund; and declaring an emergency.

Now, there may be very valid reasons for entering into this contract, especially for waste generated and collected within the county, but don't tell the voters they have to pay a trash tax because you're running out of landfill space if you've got space to sell!

And if the recycling is going so well as to give us more life in our landfill (the main concern that prompted all these actions), why would you want to then fill that space with trash from somewhere else? Doesn't that just put us back into the original position of running out of space sooner rather than later?

There is no logic to this decision. If we've been successful in extending the life of the landfill, we cannot then turn around and eliminate those additional years by selling the space that's been created.

Can you say stuck on stupid?

But this goes back to my opening sentences. It's warped logic that says the money generated from the sale in the short term is more important than the much more costly problem we'll face in the long term.

Toledoans have done their part to extend the life of the landfill- and paid dearly in additional taxes for the privilege of doing so - and city council is about to throw all that away for $600,000 a year.

They must see us only as a source of cash so they don't have to make the difficult decisions that are necessary to put this city back on a prudent fiscal footing.

Here's what it boils down to: if council has space in the landfill to sell, then they don't need us to worry about our individual contributions to that same landfill - and they don't need to tax us for it either. If they're going to get money from the sale of space in the landfill, then our trash tax should be reduced accordingly.

But don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen...government doesn't 'give back' money it's collected - it only knows how to keep increasing the amount of money it takes.

Thank you, Lindsay Webb

One of the things I've always tried to do in my political career and commentary is acknowledge good ideas and promises kept, regardless of the party of the individual.

District 6 Councilwoman Lindsay Webb was not my first choice as my district representative, but when my preferred candidate did not make it through the primary, I voted for her as the better of the two candidates.

I did so because I believed her when she said she would keep her promise to not vote for an increase in the trash tax.

And despite the pressure and the criticisms, she has consistently voted against increasing the trash tax, as she did Tuesday.

She has kept that promise to her constituents and for that she should be congratulated.

Now, I know I won't always agree with Lindsay on many issues, considering our differences in political philosophy, but that's okay. Disagreements on policy issues are to be expected and I know from our prior conversations that those disagreements will continue to be respectful - on both our parts.

But when an elected official keeps a promise and is subject to criticism for doing so, we need to defend the principled stance and publicly thank them for doing so.

So thanks, Lindsay!

Toledo balances its budget

Yes, the City of Toledo has a balanced budget - but at what cost?

I'm not talking about the additional tax people who live in the city but work elsewhere now have to pay...nor the $15 trash tax every home has to pay.

I'm talking about the subsequent costs everyone will incur as a result of the government taking more of our money than they did in the past.

While some will say that $15 a month in a trash tax isn't that much, to many it's a lot! The cries of "it's only...." ring hollow when you realize that you can't go to your boss and say, "Hey, the city just raised my taxes so I need another $180 a year in pay." You'll likely get some comment about being grateful you even have a job! Especially in Toledo!

So what will happen? Well, I can tell you that in our house, we'll have to cut out something we're currently purchasing in order to cover this new tax. So what will it be?

Well, we stopped going to movies quite some time ago because of the cost. There are only a couple of movies in the past several years that we've decided need to be seen on a big screen (Lord of the Rings, 2012 and Harry Potter) rather than wait for them to come out on video. So we've rented videos for about $3 each. But no more. We won't rent - and pay tax! - on five videos a month in order to cover the trash tax. If a lot of people make this decision, will that mean financial difficulties for the store and it's employees?

Or, perhaps we won't go to our favorite Chinese buffet over on Alexis. Carryout for lunch for two is about $15. People have already cut down on eating out. Will others make a similar decision and be the 'final straw' that closes this eatery?

Or maybe we won't pay the enterprising teens who come by and offer to shovel our driveway. Too bad, young entrepreneurs, but we've got a new tax to pay and the money doesn't grow on trees.

And if you're one of those live-in-Toledo-work-elsewhere people, the cuts in spending you'll have to make to cover your tax is much more severe. So sorry that Toledo politicians see you as a source of revenue and not as an equal member of the community.

These are the costs. These are the 'prices' the community pays when government decides it needs our money more than we do.

And shame on Toledo City Council for:

1) not recognizing or not caring about the negative impact of their decision, and

2) spending more than they had over the last several years and putting us into this situation in the first place.

Toledo has Issue 5 on the ballot which would allow these same politicians to divert money from the Capital Improvements (CIP) budget into the General Fund so they can continue to spend money like they have in the past.

We need to defeat Issue 5, just like we did the similar measure last November. These idiots have got to learn to live within their means just like the rest of us.

And we need to stop rewarding them for their fiscally irresponsible behavior by not 'promoting' them to other elective office (Joe McNamara and George Sarantou) and then not re-electing them to council anymore.

(I've exempted Tom Waniewski, who is running for state Senate, from that statement because he has consistently voted against the spending and the taxes.)

We cannot keep doing the same things, electing the same philosophies, and expect different results. Politicians don't bring change - only we can do that!

Trading one tax increase for another

Today at Toledo City Council, Mayor Mike Bell said he no longer wants to put a .25% payroll income tax increase on the ballot. Instead, he wants to eliminate the reciprocity for Toledoans who work outside the city.

Currently, people who live in Toledo but work in another jurisdiction get credit on their Toledo income tax for what they pay to the other jurisdiction. Under Bell's proposal, those individuals would pay whatever is charged to them in the other jurisdiction and 100% of what is due to Toledo.

Additionally, he still wants permission from the voters to have complete control over how the .75% payroll income tax is distributed. Under current law, collections from that tax are split between the general fund (for police and fire and other daily operations) and the Capital Improvements Fund. The proposal to go before the voters would give the mayor and council the authority to decide how to allocate those dollars.

Last year, voters rejected Council's "Safety First" proposal to reallocate the income tax dollars. I sincerely hope the voters stand by their prior position that draining the CIP isn't the right way to run a city and reject this latest proposal as well.

Bell would also delay the scheduled reductions in the 'trash tax,' keeping them at the current rates, eliminate the Fourth of July fireworks, eliminate waivers for festival fees and implement a new entertainment tax.

In effect, he's trading one type of tax increase for another.

He still wants to eliminate all pension pickups for city employees and have them pay 20% of their health-care costs, but he has removed the 10% pay cuts from discussion.

The problem is that these items would address the 2010 budget deficit, but still do not address the more than $12 million carryover deficit from 2009.

I applaud him for the cuts he wants to make, but cannot support any increase in collections for the city - and especially oppose giving Toledo politicians the ability to determine how the .75% payroll income tax is allocated. If they get that authority, I don't believe we'll ever see those dollars going into the CIP in the future due to their reputation for spending every penny they have - and then some.

Bell's letter to Council, along with budget data, is viewable here.

Here is the press release from the Mayor's office:

Mayor Asks Council to Pull Ordinance Authorizing Tax Increase

At this afternoon's City Council Committee of the Whole meeting, Mayor Michael P. Bell recommended to members of Council that the proposed ordinance authorizing a ballot initiative to increase the city income tax be pulled from the agenda. The administration has made numerous other recommendations to resolve the 2010 deficit without increasing the income tax.

Among the items outlined in the plan sent to members of council and leaders of the collective bargaining units are a proposal to add positions to the law, finance and taxation department to pursue delinquent tax collections, negotiate vendor contracts and provide additional budget analysis for long term fiscal changes. Additionally, it eliminates the July 4th fireworks, assumes elimination of pension pickups and 20% employee contribution for health insurance for all employees in all funds. It does not include a 10% wage concession from employees. Further, the balanced budget would require sale of assets, delaying the recycling fee reductions, elimination of festival fee waivers, implementation of an events tax and would change the tax code to eliminate the 100% reciprocity for those working outside of the city of Toledo.

The 'Green Police' have arrived in Toledo!

There was much to-do about the Audi 'Green Police' commercial that ran during the Superbowl. Well, reality has hit home as Toledo gets ready for it's own version of the 'green police.'

In today's Blade story about the additional $1.3 million in costs associated with the trash conversion, Dave Welsh, Director of Public Service said the costs were "unavoidable."

Among the extra costs included adding a call center to handle the large number of calls from residents, new inspectors to ensure people were using the new containers properly, and using traditional trucks to collect bulk and overflow trash within a 48-hour window. (emphasis added)

Now, the fact that they didn't know about these costs ahead of time just proves what I said all along about the operations of our local government. They didn't think about the implementation or impact ahead of time and, obviously, didn't budget for it. And now it's going to cost an additional $1.3 million? How many inspectors and call center people do they need? And for how long?

And just what, exactly, are they inspecting? Toledo has had curb-side recycling for years now. Why does the introduction of a city-purchased container for recycling require an inspection when they've never 'inspected' recycling in the past?

Do you think anyone on city council will ask these questions or demand an explanation as to why these costs were not anticipated - or even why they are needed?

But worse, yet, is my fear that, before long, they'll give these inspectors 'police' powers to issue tickets or citations to people who are not following the rules. Don't laugh - they've followed this path before, changing the city charter to grant police powers to inspectors who previously had none.

Hey - it's another source of income, otherwise known as 'revenue enhancements' in the city, so why not?

In the end, this wonderful new system that was supposed to save us money is actually going to cost us: new trucks, new cans, call center, new inspectors...guess they had to find new work for all the people whose jobs they eliminated.

Government really doesn't understand the concept of 'cutting expenses,' does it?

Toledo government's 'loss' is taxpayers' gain

Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner is at it again with a 'letter' to both mayoral candidates and Toledo City Council, chastising them for not 'raising revenues' for the city. (see bottom of post for the three-page letter)

He again cites his proposed increase in the trash tax and the elimination of reciprocity for payroll income taxes paid to other jurisdictions as 'revenue' the city should be collecting.

But the perversion of thought that passes for logic in Toledo politics is most evident in this statement from the letter:

"Our refuse fee is one of the lowest in Michigan and Ohio - $8.50 per month if you don't re-cycle (stet) and $1.00 per month if you do. We lost $8.4 million this year because it is so low."(emphasis added)

I'll skip over the whole point that our payroll taxes are supposed to pay for this service and the 'refuse fee' is over and above those payments. I'll also skip over his hyphenation of the word 'recycle' - and even the mention of Michigan prior to Ohio.

Let's look at the perspective Carty has with his claim that "we lost $8.4 million." Just who is the 'we'? He clearly means the city bureaucracy because he certainly isn't referring to the taxpayers.

And he considers the lack of imposition of additional taxation a 'loss.' Now, that may be true in terms of the government. However, he fails to see the reality of the situation in that failure to pass this additional tax meant the residents of Toledo 'saved' $8.4 million. Those who would have been taxed actually kept all that money to themselves.

And what happened to that money? Well, we spent it - on items we needed like food, mortgages, utilities, college educations or even amenities that helped our local economy. Or perhaps we saved the money, putting it into a bank account and providing a resource for a longer-term goal - or even assets upon which the bank could base lending to others.

This is a really terrific thing for the taxpayers and for our local economy. Rather than turning over the money to government, we kept it and used it for our own purposes.

Carty, instead of complaining that the city 'lost' something it had no right to, should be advertising how much 'extra' residents of this city had as a result of the failure to implement an additional tax.

But Carty, the local paper and the members of council who support this taxation see only one side of the coin: additional money from us that they don't have to play with.

And they conveniently fail to address the 'what if' when it comes to the trash tax: what if they lose a lawsuit over whether or not their so-called fee is, indeed, a tax and implemented illegally? If they lose that case, they'll have to repay what they've collected to date. Where will that money come from and how much more in debt will the city be then? Well, let's not even think of that, they must be saying to themselves.

Toledoans are fed up with the way this government is spending our money - continuing to fund studies and non-essentials while cutting police and other required services. They say there's no where else to cut, but we obviously don't believe them because we see them spending money on such frivolousness as life insurance coverage for themselves and other non-mandatory items they justify with the 'it's only' logic.

But the bigger problem in all this is the perverted reasoning and perspective that permeates the halls of One Government Center: that forcibly taking more of your money (at any time, but especially in a down economy) is somehow 'good' for you, while the opposite - you keeping your own money - is somehow a 'loss' for government and a really terrible thing for the city.

We have an election on November 3rd. Do we have the courage to elect people who believe that government's 'loss' is, indeed, the taxpayers' gain?

Or will we just elect the same old names and philosophies that got us into this mess in the first place?

The letter: